Live data from Hacker News

Engineered Addictions

masonyarbrough.substack.com

271–280 of 467 posts

Re: Engineered Addictions

#271
post #20

> Then it raised venture capital, hit scale, and needed to hit growth numbers and meet quarterly metric goals. The focus shifted from “authenticity” to “daily active users.” Having spent a few years in the VC world I have been increasingly convinced outside investment is the biggest reason why companies lose their morals. The legal obligation to represent shareholders erodes morality. When the people running these co…

I think its bigger. Morality and social contract have eroded and continue to erode. Look at Mozila for the most insidious example. Take a privacy focused product. Rope in a bunch of suckers. Then literally delete the privacy focus from your mission statment and start the "slaughter" Craiglist is proof it can be done at scale.. Its just that so few people with them means and morality exist anymore. The Sodom and Gomor…

Another reason is optimization for profit, combined with competition making it a survival necessity to do this.

Early in a nascent industry, you focus on the core product. You bring scale and scope economies. You make the supply chain more efficient. You improve the logistics. More abundant basic food stuffs for everyone, and more profits for agriculture shareholders. A true win-win.

Later on when the industry matures, the easy wins are all gone. Logistics and agriculture is fully optimized. The only scope for improvement is in marketing, adding sweeteners, and cutting out expensive ingredients. Now it's a lose-win, but from the shareholders perspective only, it's a win.

The problem is, you can't just ask companies to act nicely. While that would be a good start, even if they genuinely wanted to, competition largely forces their hand. The solution is careful and minimal regulation, to deter the pathological late-stage optimizations.

Re: Engineered Addictions

#272
post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Genuine question because I think I might be wrong on this one, or maybe misunderstanding what you're saying - aren't there cases of shareholders suing CEOs for not acting in shareholders interest and winning? If there was no legal obligation to act on behalf of shareholders how could they win those cases? My understanding is those kind of cases aren't common because a) they are hard to prove, b) the people being sued…

As far as I know, no there has not been a CEO successfully sued in the US for failing to maximize shareholder value.

[deleted]

Re: Engineered Addictions

#273
post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Genuine question because I think I might be wrong on this one, or maybe misunderstanding what you're saying - aren't there cases of shareholders suing CEOs for not acting in shareholders interest and winning? If there was no legal obligation to act on behalf of shareholders how could they win those cases? My understanding is those kind of cases aren't common because a) they are hard to prove, b) the people being sued…

As far as I know, no there has not been a CEO successfully sued in the US for failing to maximize shareholder value.

Board not CEO but see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revlon_duties

For CEO see https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-in-re-dole-food-co-inc-stockho...

Re: Engineered Addictions

#274
post #20

> Then it raised venture capital, hit scale, and needed to hit growth numbers and meet quarterly metric goals. The focus shifted from “authenticity” to “daily active users.” Having spent a few years in the VC world I have been increasingly convinced outside investment is the biggest reason why companies lose their morals. The legal obligation to represent shareholders erodes morality. When the people running these co…

> Having spent a few years in the VC world I have been increasingly convinced outside investment is the biggest reason why companies lose their morals. The legal obligation to represent shareholders erodes morality.

Oh 1000%.

I once worked at a company where the founder had famously said many times that he would never take the company public. But then, he had a stroke. And within two years they had an IPO. Started doing what every other 'big company' did instead of their own thing. And from what I heard from folks on the inside, Enshittification happened pretty quick after I left.

The lack of addressing the loose ethics of 'Behavioral Psychologists' working in these fields, is TBH a bit of a stain on the whole profession.

Re: Engineered Addictions

#275

I think the problem is more fundamental than this: When your monetization model is tied to usage, then of course you will try to maximize usage, rather than user benefit. It can't be any other way if your reward function is tied to product usage. Contrast with a car: Their monetization model does not depend on how much I drive it - as long as I find it useful enough to buy. Or a gym, where it actually runs in reverse…

Founder of a social-media-adjacent startup here — 100% agree that monetization model, moreso than funding etc is the core problem.

The decisions for which I am most grateful my co-founders and I have made, from day one, were to 1) have a monetization model that's not reliant on usage and 2) not set goals against usage.

Granted, we're a bit of a peculiar case because of the market we serve (giving parents a screen-free alternative to smartphones and social media for their kids). But personally, my experience here has given me hope that other monetization models _can_ pave the way for non-addictive social products to flourish.

Re: Engineered Addictions

#276
post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s also survivorship bias. Given that a start up has explosive growth, it way more likely that they are amoral. The ones who play the game with integrity and morals never have the type of growth that makes headlines. But I’m sure they exist.

That really doesn't follow. Explosive growth guarantees amorality? What sin is inherit to success? Has envy become so embedded in our thinking that success alone is proof of guilt? Or is it just Original Sin style bullshit where everone is automatically guilty?

Far from guaranteed, but to be a moral founder you now have a second goal alongside growth. Inevitably the two will be in conflict.

Re: Engineered Addictions

#277
I think, with no supporting data whatsoever, that this is a classic case of stated vs revealed preferences.

We all think we want a place to find community, learning, connection, etc, but given the choice will choose stimulus.

So, if given the choice of 10 social networks, on a scale of extremely stimulating to extremely connecting, we’ll end up choosing the stimulating one.

In which case, it seems tricky to find a business model fixes this more fundamental problem

Re: Engineered Addictions

#278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The word "Common Good" has a specific meaning. It steams from the word "Common" which means the people that share common values at our most basic levels, and "Good" means whats best for the people that share these common values. What you are talking about is imposed self-interest at the level of the population from one or a small population that do not represent the common good. Not the same thing IMHO.

That's not what common good is. Common good never requires that people share core values. Common good historically was what's good for the city/polis/country/band/family. Basically, you make some (ideally relatively small) sacrifice to your own interest for the sake of a larger group you share fate with. There are more formal/mathematical versions of it, for example in Bentham where the common good is essentially a w…

Here is the etymology of the word:

common(adj.)

c. 1300, "belonging to all, owned or used jointly, general, of a public nature or character," from Old French comun "common, general, free, open, public" (9c., Modern French commun), from Latin communis "in common, public, shared by all or many; general, not specific; familiar, not pretentious." This is from a reconstructed PIE compound ko-moin-i- "held in common," compound adjective formed from ko- "together" + moi-n-, suffixed form of root mei- (1) "to change, go, move," hence literally "shared by all."

Your confusing political language with what came before this. Common good is the will of the people. It has nothing to do with cities, countries, or states. All of those things were created by people that wield political power. This is not the same as the common good. Common good directly relates to what is good for the people that share common values. You have been misinformed, by political society unfortunately.

Re: Engineered Addictions

#280
Western capitalists have engineered addictions for 100s of years from forcing China to accept opium to introducing the taste of coffee to children to create demand for coffee in Japan in the future it's nothing new. Now they are doing the same with technology.
Post reply on HN